3. As a study of the original languages is made it is found that "wine" is a generic word and cannot be restricted to only alcoholic drinks. A proper understanding of the word depends upon – contextual use, the cultural practices of that time, and harmony with God’s principles.

4. By studying the context of verses where "wine" is found we discovered that two categories of "wine" exist in the Bible. There are "bad" wines which refer to the alcoholic drink and stand as emblems of God's wrath and sin's destruction. There are "good" wines that are non‑alcoholic and represent God's mercies. This distinction is clearly portrayed throughout the Bible. This distinction helps the sincere heart answer the critical query – Does God approve of drinking alcoholic beverages?  Does God approve of the use of the “bad” wine? I know this places the issue on the simplest possible level, however God’s commands are always simple but man often refashions the commands and allows bias to complicate the matter. This fact (bias complication) is the most difficult obstacle to one understanding and obeying God’s will.

Having established these points, we are prepared to examine specific texts in the New Testament that are often used by advocates of social drinking to justify their practice. These are texts that often confuse honest searchers of Truth. >From the gospels the social drinker often states, "After all, Jesus drank wine. How can we say it is wrong to drink in moderation?" There are two fundamental errors in this statement: it assumes "wine" is always alcoholic; it assumes "moderation" is acceptable. A further study of the texts of the Gospels is needed so we will know how to respond to the social drinker's position.

Body:

I. JOHN 2:1‑10

A. If Jesus made, drank, and commended the use of fermented "wine," then there is nothing wrong with a moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages. This text (Jn 2) is probably one of the few Bible passages known by those in the world. It is put to frequent use to add support to choices to drink alcoholic beverages.

Advocates of social drinking make their argument with the following facts from this text.

1. They state it can be inferred that Christ drank alcoholic beverages ("wine") because He was a guest.

2. Christ changed water to "wine." The word OINOS ("wine") indicates that an alcoholic beverages was served. "Wine" refers only to a fermented beverage. Only fermented "wines" were served at the wedding feasts because the Jews did not know how to prevent fermentation of stored "wines."

3. Christ approved of people drinking "wine." Even though there is no record of Christ NOT drinking, He did not disapprove or He would have never provided wine. The fact that Christ produced between 120 to 160 gallons of high‑quality alcoholic wine for the wedding is evident that He approves of drinking alcoholic beverages in "moderation."

4. The description given by the master of the banquet regarding the wine as "good wine" means that it was a high‑quality alcoholic wine.

5. The expression "well drunk" indicates that the guests were intoxicated because they had been drinking fermented wine. Consequently the wine Jesus made must have also been fermented.

B. Proper consideration of this passage indicates that the social drinker is in error on all points. John 2 is one of the most misunderstood, and misrepresented passages in the whole of the Gospels . . . The misunderstanding has arisen from imposing upon the ancient Greek text, and ancient Jewish habits of food and drink, and relying entirely upon the modern and Northern European concept that the word 'wine' always meant intoxicating liquor (Ferrar Fenton, “The Bible And Wine,” College Press Commentary: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus, 312). In response to the social drinker we note the following points:

1. The fact that Christ drank the "wine" at the wedding feast is not disputed. As a guest He would have done so. What is strongly rejected is the idea He drank, and created, alcoholic wine. Too often people assume that the Lord created/drank alcoholic wine. Such an assumption is dangerous as is shown by the next point.

2. "Wine" is OINOS, a generic word that can refer to both kinds. It is incorrect to restrict OINOS to only an alcoholic beverage. It is also ignorance to suggest that only alcoholic wines were served at wedding feasts (see below under the cultural practices of the Jews). It is also absurd to suggest that the Jews did not know how to prevent fermentation of grape juice.

                   a. We have seen that OINOS and YAYIN are generic terms whose express meaning must be determined by the context in which they are found. It is used to translate even the fresh produce on the vine (Is 65:8). The fact that Christ made a beverage described as OINOS does not offer any support for those wishing for the Almighty's approval of drinking alcoholic beverages.

                   b. The contention that Christ drank, created, and provided alcoholic "wine" at Cana cannot be proven with the mere mention of OINOS! Just because an alcoholic "wine" is called OINOS does not mean much because a non‑alcoholic "wine" is also called OINOS.

                   c. The assertion that the wedding guests first drank alcoholic wine and that proves that Christ created alcoholic wine is foolish thinking. The "wine" provided by Christ was different from that drunk first. This suggests the two wines were different; they were not identical. How were they different? One could have been alcoholic and the other was not. Both could have been non‑alcoholic but the Lord's "wine" was far superior in taste. Both could have been alcoholic but the Lord's have been a better quality. HOW can we determine which difference is the most reasonable? The best way is to look at the situation through the eyes of the wedding festivals at that time.

3. The "approval" of Christ for people to imbibe in alcoholic beverages is unfounded from this text. Christ did approve of people drinking the "wine," BUT it cannot be proven that this "wine" was alcoholic.

4. The description of the wine by the master of the banquet does not mean alcoholic wine was created by Christ.

a. It is often assumed that the description ("the good wine") refers to a beverage high in alcoholic content. However, this is an assumption based upon our MODERN tastes and not upon the culture surrounding the wedding in Cana! "We use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength, and its power to intoxicate. But no such sense is to be attached to the word here" (A. Barnes, Commentary on Luke‑John, Vol 2, 197).

b. Evidence abounds supporting the position that this wine in John 2 was non‑alcoholic and that unfermented "wines" were considered the best wines.

1) Pliny records that "when the grape‑juice was boiled to one‑third of its bulk, to secure the finest flavor – that is to be made into the best wine – it was called SAPA, from which our word 'savory', delicious in taste, is derived."

2) To give SAPA its sweet taste and flavor, herbs and spices were added as it boiled. "Such was the 'best wine' of the ancients, the sweetest and nicest flavored to the taste – not as we imagine and mean the most intoxicating, when we speak of the 'best wine'."

3) Albert Barnes (197). "Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe the wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent . . . The most useful wine . . . was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine . . . was that which had not been adulterated by the 'addition of anything to the must or juice.' Pliny expressly says that a 'good wine' was one that was destitute of spirit. Lib. Iv. C. 13. It should not be assumed, therefore, that the 'good wine' was stronger than the other. It is rather to be presumed that it was milder. That would be the best wine certainly."

4) Numbers 18:12 — The “best wine” (“good” wine) was to be offered to God. This indicates that the “wine” thus designated was non-alcoholic because no fermented beverages could be offered to God. Thus, Christ was acting consistently with the will of God! Will we allow personal bias to so coerce our understanding that we have the blessed Lord behav­ing contrary to God’s expressed will?

c. "The wine Christ made was of high quality, not because of its alcoholic content, but because, as Henry Morris explains, it was 'new wine, freshly created! It was not old, decayed wine, as it would have to be if it were intoxicating. There was no time for the fermentation process to break down the structure of its energy­ giving sugars into disintegrative alcohols'" (Bacchiocchi, 140).

5. The expression "well drunk" does not indicate intoxication.

a. It is assumed that the Greek term used here indicates intoxication and thus the banquet master was indicating that the wedding guests were intoxicated. Since the banquet master's words (viewed through OUR understanding and not through the vocabulary of that time) are used to suggest the guest usually become intoxicated on the "good wine" but the "good wine" was not provided until Christ's miracle, then Christ's "wine" had to have been alcoholic.

b. This assumption is faulty. The Greek verb (methusko) is often used in the New Testament to refer to drunkenness (ìÝèõóïò 1 Co 6:10). However, the verb is sometimes used without any ethical/religious judgments when it refers to a group who has "freely drunk" a beverage. It is thus used to describe the quantity used not the effect of the drinking. It is thus used to describe a freely drinking environment (cf LXX on Gn 43:34). This translation is seen in some versions trying to communicate this very point. See ASV; RSV; NASB on John 2:10. Note especially the footnote in NASB which offers the literal translation but places the modern cultural meaning of the phrase by allowing “drunk” to be stated with the modern meaning of one being “drunk” and not giving the meaning as “filled with drink.” In the body of the text the NASB does offer the optional translation that excludes intoxication and simply refers to one having drank a large quantity.

Using simple reasoning one is able to understand this was not referring to alcoholic wine.

1) Christ would not do contrary to God’s will and offer “bad wine.”

2) There is a reasonable and very compelling explanation that this was  NON-alcoholic wine. Why not accept it?  The verb methusko (ìåèýù) in John 2:10 is used in the sense of satiation. It refers simply to the large quantity of wine generally consumed at a feast. Thus used there is no reference to any intoxicating effects of this “wine” that Christ provided!

        c. The feast customs of ancient weddings explain the term "drunk freely." Often the hosts would secure some of the best wines and begin the feast by serving these. However, these wines were much more expensive than the common wines and only a small quantity could be provided. After the more expensive, "best wines," were served then the inferior "common" wines would be served. At the beginning of the feast, the taste senso­ries would be more acute but after eating and drinking they would be "dulled" and less able to distinguish the taste.   The banquet master's comments express concern that the normal procedure of the feast had not been followed. We understand this in a very practical way – how many have stood in line a fellowship meas of the congregation with mouth’s watering and the first tastes of food are delicious but then they return for a second/third serving and suddenly the food does not appear so “appealing.” In serving honored guests the rule of hospitality is to serve the best first and then when the best has been exhausted you bring out the inferior. This is what the reference in John 2:10 means.

How tragic a commentary on our Bible study methods that we are so intent on focusing on approval for alcoholic wine that we have taken a phrase from a passage that does not even deal with alcoholic wine and fashioned an argument for social drinking of alcoholic beverages! The point of the miracle in John 2 was to show Christ was superior. We have taken this miracle and proven that we can drink the wine that is an abomination to God! The greatest tragedy — we do not even realize what we have done! In rushing to support “our” traditions we have committed a grievous error in understanding the Bible! And most do not appear to be concerned as long as they maintain their “comfort level”! What will be God’s response to such? I do not think too many are concerned about God’s response.

C. Reasons why we should reject the idea that Christ created alcoholic "wine" at Cana:

              1. It was contrary to the prevailing cultural practices of that day. Our modern culture cannot conceive of non‑alcoholic "wine" being served at a wedding. However, we must consider the Jewish customs of the wedding feasts if we are to ascertain the kind of "wine" expected by those attending the wedding in Cana. The ancient custom of feasting is indicated by the text. As the feast began the host would serve the "sweetest wine" and after it had been consumed a lesser quality wine would be served. In John 2 the comment was made because the customary order was reversed.

Jewish Rabbis have written regarding the kinds of "wine" used in religious ceremonies in the Temple and at weddings. (Taken from Bacchiocchi, 140.)

              a. From the Mishna, "Rabbi Yehuda permits it (boiled wine as heave‑offering), because it improves it (its quality)."

              b. Such a wine (the non‑alcoholic) was esteemed (among the Jews) the richest and best wine."

              c. Elsewhere the Talmud indicates that drinking (alcoholic wine) to the accompaniment of musical instruments in festive occasions such as a wedding (Sotah 48a; also Mishna Sotah 9,11) was forbidden."

              d. NOTE: These references clearly show that the kind of "wine" used in weddings and religious ceremonies were non‑alcoholic. Thus those attending the wedding feast in Cana would expect to receive the non‑alcoholic wine.

              2. The moral implications of Christ providing alcoholic wine are repulsive. If He offered these guests an intoxicating "wine" that act would destroy His sinlessness. The nature of our Lord is in total harmony with the position that this was non‑alcoholic wine. 

                   a. If the group was already well inebriated by consumption of a large quantity of alcoholic beverage, Christ's actions only encouraged sin. The quantity produced by Christ's miracle would have been 120 to 160 gallons of alcoholic beverages. If so Christ must be held responsible for prolonging and increasing their intoxication. He would have violated Habakkuk 2:15! 

                   "Those who wish to insist that the wine used at the feast was alcoholic and that Jesus also provided alcoholic wine, though of a better quality, are driven to the conclusion that Jesus provided a large additional quantity of intoxicating wine so that the wedding party could continue its reckless indulgence. Such a conclusion destroys the moral integrity of Christ's character" (Bacchiocchi, 143).

                   b. "Can it be believed that He, by making alcohol, sanctions the making of it and the giving of it to His creatures, when He, better than all others, knew that it, in the past, had been the cause of temporal and eternal ruin of myriads, and which, in all the ages to come would plunge myriads upon myriads into the depth of eternal damnation?"

                   c. If we take this wine to be alcoholic are we not condemning our Lord's character? "It is pertinent to ask: Is it not derogatory to the character of Christ and the teaching of the Bible to suppose that he exerted his miraculous power to produce at least sixty gallons of intoxicating wine?"

                   d. "It is against the principle of Scriptural and moral analogy to suppose that Christ, the Creator of good things (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25; Col 1:16), would exert His supernatural energy to bring into existence an intoxicating wine which Scripture condemns as a 'mocker' and a 'brawler' (Prov 20:1) and which the Holy Spirit has chosen as the symbol of divine wrath" (Bacchiocchi, 141).

              3. Basic common sense argues against Christ offering alcoholic wine. The large amount of "wine" produced by Christ's miracle either (1) encouraged excessive drinking and drunkenness, or (2) offered the wedding guests an ample supply of fresh grape juice.

              Christ's miracles were always directed for benevolent purposes. If He created alcoholic wine in this miracle, this is the only exception. Creating such a large quantity of intoxicating beverage would have been a malevolent manifestation of His power. Instead of the miracle bringing glory to God it would have brought shame. It would have been a miracle to encourage drunkenness rather than holiness.

II. MATTHEW 11:19

A. The social drinker argues: "While Jesus mentions the exaggerated reputation He had with His enemies, the passage does not suggest that He abstained totally as John the Baptist did."

B. Proper consideration of this text again proves the social drinker in error. Christ was illustrating the unreasonable position of those determined not to hear but always finding fault (11:13‑19). Look at the group upon which the social drinker places confidence! They trust the authority of those determined to discredit Christ! The same reference states He was "gluttonous." On another occasion He was said to have a "devil" (Jn 1:20; 8:48). If the social drinker believes the first statement, will s/he believe the other two charges against our Lord? These sought to destroy Christ's influence and the best way they knew to do so was to have Him known as a "wine‑­bibber!" Christ did not respond to these men for He knew they would not listen. His disciples knew the charge was false and were not affected (cf. v. 19b).

III. MATTHEW 26:27‑29

A. This text is used by social drinkers to sustain their position. However this text deals a deathblow to their position! It is tragic that the vast majority of people are ignorant about the "wine" to be used in the Lord's Supper.  Listen . . .

1. Anglican Bishop, "The example of our Lord necessitates the use of fermented wine in . . . (the) Lord's Supper."

2. The Roman and Greek churches use intoxicating wine in Communion, as well as many denominational Churches.

3. Even in the Churches of Christ many believe that the use of fermented wine should be used, or tolerated.

B. However, the reason why non‑alcoholic wine should be used in Communion is stated in simple terms by Scripture. It was during Passover that Christ instituted Communion. God absolutely forbade the presence of BHARM (yeast, ferment, leaven) during Passover because it represented the putrefied, the rotten, corruption, diseased, and death (Ex 12:8, 15, 17‑20, 34, 39). This is the simple reason Christ instituted the Lord's Supper with unfermented wine and we are to follow that pattern! Using alcoholic wine is to ignore His example. (See Bacchiocchi, 165ff) 

Another point to consider is how the phrase "fruit of the vine" indicates that this was non‑alcoholic. Literally this phrase means "that borne of the vine" and refers to freshly pressed grapes. "The general word OINOS is never used in Holy Scripture to describe the wine used at the Lord's Supper. Is this by chance or design? Surely it is of design because OINOS might be intoxicating, but the fruit of the vine never is" (See Patton, 85).

Some try to use 1 Corinthians 11:20‑34 to argue that the wine of Communion was alcoholic because some were "drunk." There is no doubt that drunkenness was present at Corinth. But in order to gain the full meaning of the text one has to look at the purpose of it being given. Here were Christians making the Communion something never designed by God a feast. The rich brought plentifully and gave themselves selfishly. The poor were left unfed. They are not "discerning the body." Partaking the Supper was a perversion of God's intent! In order to correct this abuse Paul re‑enacted the institution of the Supper. It is worthy to note that in 10:16 he contrasts the proper observance and the improper. Their table and their cup were the devil's. The proper table and the proper cup were the Lord's (10:21). The point is quite clear, "If their cup contained that which was intoxicating, it was, as Paul declares, the devil's cup; but the cup contained that which was the opposite, and was not intoxicating, was, as the apostle teaches, the Lord's cup, the cup of blessing."

C. Once again I plead for the application of common sense to this question. “Is it possible that Christ took an intoxicating liquor, which in all the ages past had been the cause of misery and ruin, and which in all ages to come would destroy myriads in temporal and eternal destruction; that he took the wine which His own inspired Word declared was ‘the poison of asps,’ ‘the poison of serpents,’ ‘the poison of dragons,’ whose deadly bite is like a serpent, and whose fatal sting is like an adder, and made that the symbol of his atonement, saying, ‘This is the New Testament in my blood’?” (Patton, 86-87)

Concluding Thoughts:

I. From this discussion we can make a convincing argument for the total abstinence of alcoholic beverages. Appeals to Christ do not prove that He used alcoholic wine. In fact, the burden of proof is upon the advocates of social drinking to prove such.

II. There are two types of wine in the Bible. In all references studied it cannot be shown that alcoholic wine was used. One may argue that alcoholic wine was used but only if s/he wishes to ignore the ancient customs of festivals, eating habits, and God's Word.

III. It is unreasonable to believe that Jesus ever drank alcoholic beverages because . . .

He would have drunk that which . . . would harm his body; would cause Him to harm others, would have caused him to behave irresponsibly; causes one out of ten to become addicts; would encourage to drink and be destroyed; was inconsistent with everything else he taught; in all ages past has been the cause of misery and ruin, which has destroyed myriads in temporal and eternal destruction; His own inspired Word declared was the "poison of asps," "the poison of serpents," "the poison of dragons," and which stands as the emblem of God's eternal wrath!

"I do not for a moment imagine, much less believe, that the advocates of only alcoholic wines intend to damage the benevolence of the divine Saviour. Yet when they strenuously claim that he not only personally drank intoxicating wine, but made a large quantity of it for the wedding‑guests, they throw shadows over his benevolence; for he, better than all others, knew the seductive and destructive influence of alcoholic drinks, as he could not only look back through all the ages past, but also down through all the ages to come, and tell the myriads upon myriads who by them would be made drunkards and fail of heaven; as he, better than all others, understood the law of benevolence, and knew how to practice self‑denial for the good of others."

There is little doubt that Jesus drank "wine." But there is NO EVIDENCE to conclude that this "wine" was alcoholic. To teach that Christ drank intoxicating wine is to teach what is contrary to God's divine principles!

IV. In our next lesson we will examine some of the more famous texts in Paul’s Epistles that are used to justify the drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation.

John L. Kachelman, Jr.                      September 24, 2002